Flip

Does the tracker really not list the deadline for ballot submissions and the date of the announcement of votes?

I'd much rather believe it is right there in front of me, and somehow I am missing it.

With 143 ballots, Schilling at 74.8%, which means 1 vote away from being above the line. Probably won’t do so well on private ballots, but you never know.

With 143 ballots, Schilling at 74.8%, which means 1 vote away from being above the line. Probably won’t do so well on private ballots, but you never know.

He is -1 on the public vote from last year. He is only 50% from 1st time voters (Bonds is at 83%). His private votes were 22.9% less than his public votes in 2020. No way he is going to get elected this year.

Nobody is getting in this year...today,I saw one of the analysts who takes the Tracker's data and updates the percentage chance of getting at least 5%, and getting to 75%. This is about as boring a year as I can remember for the HOF, in terms of suspense:

Schilling was the only candidate with a non-zero chance of getting to 75% this year...and it was less than a 1-in-200 chance;

Buerhle was the only new candidate with a better than 50% chance of surviving the first ballot.

Hunter was the only other new candidate that had even a 20% chance of surviving the first ballot.

No candidates on the ballot are falling off in 2021 because of the 10-year rule.

None of the returning candidates appear to be in jeopardy of failing to get 5%, so they won't fall of via that route, either.

In other words, the only three things about the 2021 ballot process that are worth five seconds of time are:

1) Several candidates will make a lot of progress towards 75% (Rolen, Helton, and Wagner), so that's something;
2) Mark Buerhle will probably join the other returning candidates in 2022, though he will likely stay at the bottom of the ballot in future years;
3) Clemens, Bonds, Schilling and Sosa are all one year closer to falling off the ballot.

There you go. Next year's drama? Will Ortiz be treated as a slam-dunk folk hero candidate, or as an impressive candidate with some PED and DH baggage? Are there very many voters who simply wanted to penalize Clemens and Bonds by waiting until their final year to vote for them (I don't think there is muh of that at all, actually)? Can Curt Schilling shut his mouth for a year, and maybe some voters will hold their nose and vote for him in his 10th and final year? Will Rolen go up enough this year where he could plausibly get over the finish line next year? And I'm kind of curious how well ARod does with the voters. I'm thinking, better than Manny Ramirez has done, but not as well as Bonds and Clemens have done.

I'm thinking, better than Manny Ramirez has done, but not as well as Bonds and Clemens have done.

That's where he should be. There are probably voters who will vote for guys whose steroid use dates to the pre-testing era but won't do it for guys who were suspended.

1) Several candidates will make a lot of progress towards 75% (Rolen, Helton, and Wagner), so that's something;

I'd say Rolen, Helton and, possibly, Jones. I don't think Wagner has enough time left, particularly with none of the guys in front of him going in this year.

I think the chances for schilling are bigger than the math. I think the private guys are composed of some guys who believe in voting someone in once they get to a certain level. That is, the 70% threshold may have prompted a handful of them to push him in. At any rate, I don’t think he’ll go in and I think it’s just as likely he gets less as opposed to more. Having said that, I think the chances he gets more are higher than most think.

If you don’t like schilling and don’t want to give him a platform, I’d put him in this year because at least there are a few others that will go in with him (Jeter, Simmons, Miller). Wait a year and he might be alone. Then the today’s game committee votes in 22 and he will surely go in that year and therefore might be alone.

For the curious (if there are any): the Japanese hall of fame did not elect any players this year. The guy who managed the 1996 Olympic team, and an author who writes about baseball got elected.

1) Several candidates will make a lot of progress towards 75% (Rolen, Helton, and Wagner), so that's something;

Andruw Jones actually did very well this year in terms of making progress, he picked up 19 new votes and is at 83% with new voters. With six more chances he's looking pretty good.

I think the chances for schilling are bigger than the math. I think the private guys are composed of some guys who believe in voting someone in once they get to a certain level.

Well the math says he's only received 50% of the 6 new voters on the tracker, so that doesn't improve his percentage. He's picked up 2 new voters but lost 4, so that doesn't improve his percentage. The last time his private votes were not at least 20% worse than his public votes was 2016, so that doesn't indicate any private voters are more likely to vote for him. I think that math is pretty solid

Apparently Jim Caple has gone from not voting for Helton/Rolen to voting for Helton/Rolen to not voting for them again and it isn’t the 10 person limitation

How does that happen ?

#511 Well neither played very well last year.

Apparently Jim Caple has gone from not voting for Helton/Rolen to voting for Helton/Rolen to not voting for them again and it isn’t the 10 person limitation

How does that happen ?

I mean, you wouldn't want to dilute a ballot that includes Bonds, Clemens, Schilling, Vizquel and Hunter.

Nick canepa on his blank ballot

“I’ve made it clear I’m never voting for juicers — perceived or proven. There’s a chance someone will get the 75 percent of the vote required for entry, maybe not.

I’m a hard ass regarding baseball’s hall. If I don’t vote for a player the first time he’s eligible, I don’t vote for him ever. I see no one in my legitimacy range as ballot-worthy.

I’m not going for anyone I think doesn’t belong just to vote for somebody.”

This is an extreme position but I like it for its clarity. I’ve always struggled with how people all of a sudden decide someone is hall-worthy. I can see running across an argument once in a blue moon that changes your mind but it shouldn’t happen much. The ten player limit is legit but if you are a small hall guy you’d never have 10. And his PED position is more sane than others - Ortiz will be an example of that hypocrisy.

Having said that, if you are using that criteria only, I think you’d have to vote for schilling. How is he not a small hall vote if you are ignoring the social media stuff.

Schilling didn’t have 300 wins, or even 250, so maybe he’s not good enough for a small hall voter.

#515 Much to my surprise, Schilling does extremely well on the HOF monitor. Meaning he hit some key milestones and has what you might call a standard narrative hook.

He does however do less well on the HOF standards.

Overall he ranks 38 in Black Ink, 37 in Grey Ink, 34 in Monitor, 52 in Standards, 28 in Jaws.

And his list of similar pitchers is not overwhelming (though deceptive -- Schilling played through sillyball. Milt Pappas and Bob Welch didn't so they're pretty obviously not as good).

All in all comfortably but not overwhelmingly qualified no matter how you look at it. And does best if you focus on the extended prime -- where he fits comfortably in the second tier.

I’ve made it clear I’m never voting for juicers — perceived or proven. There’s a chance someone will get the 75 percent of the vote required for entry, maybe not.

I’m a hard ass regarding baseball’s hall. If I don’t vote for a player the first time he’s eligible, I don’t vote for him ever. I see no one in my legitimacy range as ballot-worthy.

I’m not going for anyone I think doesn’t belong just to vote for somebody.”

This sounds like a very lazy and arrogant person. He is always right the first time and can't be bothered to think about other people's arguments. Whether I agree or disagree with his specific votes, the sooner people like him lose their votes the better.

I'm sorry, but blank ballots should not be counted. There hasn't been a single writers ballot that didn't have multiple eventual HoFers on it. Because of that, I personally think in years when no one gets 75%, the top vote getter should be inducted so that there's at least one inductee. Because those players get inducted eventually anyway.

This is an extreme position but I like it for its clarity.

To me it's not clarity, it's simply further example of how Canepa is, and has been for decades, nothing but a horse's ass who wants to be the center of attention. He's a terrible "writer" and, according to my in-laws, a domestic abuser. Gigantic P.O.S. who cannot be purged from the voting rolls soon enough, IMO.

This sounds like a very lazy and arrogant person. He is always right the first time and can't be bothered to think about other people's arguments. Whether I agree or disagree with his specific votes, the sooner people like him lose their votes the better.

You are correct! Lazy and arrogant suit him to a T! And I already seconded your idea about him losing his vote, the sooner the better, without even having read your post.

  518. cookiedabookie Posted: I'm sorry, but blank ballots should not be counted.

I like this idea. Submitting a blank ballot is a petty, vindictive, "look at me" act which should not be tolerated by the HOF or by the BBWAA. If you don't think anyone is qualified, fine, but you don't get to up the denominator for election purposes.

#518 - I've always thought they should have a 2 player minimum with their elections. Top 2 vote getters, plus anoyone else over 75%. It guarantees that they won't have a sparse (or non existant) induction ceremony, and it speeds up the process without inducting anyone who wasn't going to get in eventually anyway.

Has anyone currently outside the HOF ever finished in the top 2 on a ballot?

The best finish I can find for a non-Hall of Famer is Tony Oliva's 3rd place finish in 1988, with 47.3% of the vote. That he finished third with that low a percentage is more of an oddity of the balloting that year than anything else, as usually there's a half-dozen guys or more who do better than that in the voting each year. Gil Hodges also finished 3rd on the ballot, in 1981 with 60.1%, and in 1977 with 58.5%, and 1976 with 60.1%.

It's quite amazing how stable Hodges' results were in the voting.

Has anyone currently outside the HOF ever finished in the top 2 on a ballot?

No. There have been a few who finished #3:

2020 Schilling 70.0%
1988 Oliva 47.3%
1981 Hodges 60.1%
1977 Hodges 58.5%
1976 Hodges 60.1%
1970 Hodges 48.3%

The most recent #4 finishers outside the HOF:

2020 Clemens 61.0%
1996 Garvey 37.2 %
1980 Hodges 59.7%